Today's first Oregon-Texas game.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Hmm.

She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

I do understand that, and would rule 2 outs as well, despite the fact that this rule is in the wrong place.

But I've been saying for at least 2 years now that the way they wrote the rule is NOT what they mean (and not what we call!). The way they wrote it, taken literally, means we cannot call 2 outs if the fielder actually manages to catch the ball. Which is rather stupid as it would penalize the defense for making the catch (and reward them for not making it).

I know what the "right" ruling is... it's just not what the book says it is anymore.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I believe this play was not called correctly under 12-19-1, exception 2:
2. If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out.

IMO, the pop up is very much "routine"

Thank you, but why isn't that up with the rule?

I agree, the BR should have also been called out.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Thank you, but why isn't that up with the rule?

I agree, the BR should have also been called out.

Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).

[AtlUmpSteve]

I believe the question is why this isn't also listed under 12.9.7, Base Runner is out when she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. I believe this is the section everyone has hung their hat on until now.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).

But ASA's reference to fair or foul at the rule level is a waste of space. A fly ball is a fly ball, fair or foul. This is the type of extaneous wording that is placed just to satisfy those who want to read something into a rule that isn't there.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).

I am sorry if I am dense on this one but to me it is a no brainer that br and runner are out on this play. I learned that one a long time ago.

It sounds to me that NCAA has created a cluster smudge with the rule book on this play. Comments?